Anders wrote:The government can just keep covering up 9/11. If they officially admit that they have been making false statements then all citizens and greedy companies (including the whole media industry) can sue the government.

The media industry suing the government for making false statements about 9/11? Anders, I think you need to take September Clues 101. http://www.septemberclues.info/

Ok, the media industry was a poor example, but just as ordinary citizens can sue the government so can greedy companies and organizations.

Anders wrote:The government can just keep covering up 9/11. If they officially admit that they have been making false statements then all citizens and greedy companies (including the whole media industry) can sue the government.

The media industry suing the government for making false statements about 9/11? Anders, I think you need to take September Clues 101. http://www.septemberclues.info/

Ok, the media industry was a poor example, but just as ordinary citizens can sue the government so can greedy companies and organizations.

Dear Anders,

I'm not sure just how many false premises I have time to tackle here.

But one, the Trumpkas has NO intention/inclination/desire/ability/etc. to actually reveal the Fact that 9/11 was (and remains) a total Scam.

Two, the "legal system", like any so called "president", is just a tool in the bag of goodies for the psychopaths that own and run the US.

And lastly, even if you make the Huge Assumption that the Trump wants to expose 9/11, there is still NOTHING that could or would be done in the form of any "lawsuit" that would factor in to the equation.

As a practicing attorney in the US I'll tell you flat out- there isn't a damn thing a person could do in the form of a lawsuit that would survive a SIMPLE "12(b)(6)" motion. And that's even Assuming genuine Good Faith on the part of the court etc. [Note: Go do a little bit of research on lawsuits where courts have dodged cases on grounds of "political questions", "lack of Article III standing", or simply on the grounds that the person alleges an injury whereby no Remedy exists (i.e. Rule 12(b)(6)]

No offense, but you're WAY out of your depth talking about the legal system and the idea of false statements by the government/media as a basis for lawsuits etc. It's like you're trying to set up some notion that the Trump might really want to do something about 9/11, but sadly the courts and the fallout from lawsuits would present too big of a problem.

It's either that, or you have an enormous misunderstanding of how the system in the US "works".

Edit to add:

Moreover, my post skips (mostly) the faulty premise that the Trump is some kind of authentic person who managed to fight his way into being "elected" and now has autonomy to "take on the establishment". Please give me a break already . It's sad that people are actually falling for this. Trump is just Another 9/11 gatekeeper, in addition to his other Clown roles.

To think otherwise would be on par with concluding that "Alex Jones" is genuine alternative media.

SacredCowSlayer » November 22nd, 2016, 2:06 pm wrote:As a practicing attorney in the US I'll tell you flat out- there isn't a damn thing a person could do in the form of a lawsuit that would survive a SIMPLE "12(b)(6)" motion. And that's even Assuming genuine Good Faith on the part of the court etc.

You fail to consider the vast chasm between a 9/11 cover-up and an official declaration of the U.S. government having made false statements. Such admission is the opening up of a Pandora's box of previously hidden wrongdoings by the government. Anyone and her uncle can file a lawsuit based on such premise simply by the fact that the government is admitting to willfully having been involved in criminal activities. That's why the Trump administration needs to issue an executive order preventing such lawsuits for reasons of national security.

If, and this is a tremendously huge if, Trump had a response to the theatrics on 9/11 you can be sure it would never take the form of revealing the charade to the public. My own feeling is he knows the official story is nonsense and that the real story is above his pay-grade as far as anything to bring up with the public. Part of his indoctrination into the job is discovering how little he is in charge of and which areas and subjects are strictly verboten.

Even in the impossibly hypothetical scenario from a parallel universe, where Donald Drumpf would be an honest person, who is such a great actor that he played along with the establishment mainstream puppets until the moment he goes revealing all that didn't happen on smokescreen day, it would still be impossible to get the message across, knowing the weapons that establishment has:

- all the channels needed to mass-spread such messages are controlled; MSM, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Vimeo, Reddit and what have you- even if a set of videos would slip through, there's always the arsenal of weapons containing ridicule, slander, confusion and authenticity warfare- if that still wouldn't work, Trump would be impoverished by the banks who have access to his cash, states who can take his properties and credit card firms that with one click can block his accounts- the next card that can and will be played at any moment is threats to him and his family, his daughter is married to a rich jewish finance industry guy and she wouldn't like it when (sugar) daddy runs away leaving her in the gutter. Who would pay for the make-up?- and the final solution would be a set of snipers or drones that end the one who opened Pandora's box for a few minutes and people can go back watching Pizzagate, the Big Bang "Theory" or next selection day

The Trump administration, if it was possible, would benefit from telling the truth about 9/11. Or else they will be bogged down by all the cover-up needed to prevent the growing heap of lies from being exposed. Even with compartmentalization of information the result of lies is more and more friction both within the government and between the government and the people.

I don't agree with you Anders. The Trump 'administration', or more accurately a group of actors doing their jobs, will benefit from doing whatever job they are told to do, and it most certainly will not run to 'exposing 9/11'. They are just actors, playing a part they have been given, and just like all the other actors, they work for the same control organisation. I think the general populace make a mighty error when they mistake all this for democracy. All it is in reality is something that looks enough like democracy to satisfy the majority.

bongostaple » November 23rd, 2016, 9:12 am wrote:I don't agree with you Anders. The Trump 'administration', or more accurately a group of actors doing their jobs, will benefit from doing whatever job they are told to do, and it most certainly will not run to 'exposing 9/11'. They are just actors, playing a part they have been given, and just like all the other actors, they work for the same control organisation. I think the general populace make a mighty error when they mistake all this for democracy. All it is in reality is something that looks enough like democracy to satisfy the majority.

Yes, I think you are correct about the top politicians being actors. Including Donald Trump having been trained to become President. I don't see how the Trump administration can admit anything about covering up 9/11 as the situation is right now, but one idea I have is that the long term plan includes officially exposing 9/11 and they have a chance of doing that with the new administration. Trump has already shown to be pro conspiracy theories, and that is a part of his role. Is that just controlled opposition? Not necessarily. We will see what happens.

I found very little information about an official demolition plan for the twin towers on the web. Only information from conspiracy researchers like: "In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can't build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center's demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex." -- http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/soviet ... s-had.html

It surely wasn't "small thermonuclear devices" as Khalezov suggests, but his claim about demolition plan requirement for skyscrapers in NYC is something worth investigating.

This is very good point, Anders. WTC towers have been constructed when worked Building Code 1968 NYC. I cant find in it about requirements documents before starting construction process. As far as i have understood demolition plans of skycrapers of both WTC should be in construction documents pack BEFORE beginnings all works. If you or somebody help me to find this law rule\article which contains such content about requirement of demolition plans, then this will be very nice!

The administrative provisions in Chapter 1 of Title 28 of the NYC Administrative Code (Admin. Code) that govern the NYC Construction Codes including the NYC Building Code (BC) require that construction documents must be complete when a project application is submitted by the applicant. Chapter 1 of Title 28 of the Administrative Code states that “Construction documents shall be complete and of sufficient clarity to indicate the location and entire nature and extent of work proposed, and shall show in detail that they conform to the provisions of this code and other applicable laws and rules…” (Admin Code §28-104.7; See also BC 106).

on page 3

The following must be included on all drawings: Compliance with DOB Graphic Standards* Title Block, discipline designators and revision numbers as per DOB requirements* Scale of each drawing or detail North Arrow on plans Dimensions – related to scope and area of work Drawing Title Notes and details – only pertaining to the scope of work Clear description of the proposed scope of work, include construction and/or demolition work All drawings submitted to support the architectural plans must be in accordance with NYC Code and must be signed and sealed by a design professional.

In general now the demolition plan is required prior to the beginning of works on building. But how was at that time of BC 1968 NYC, specially for WTC's buildings process ?

Vladislaw wrote:In general now the demolition plan is required prior to the beginning of works on building. But how was at that time of BC 1968 NYC, specially for WTC's buildings process ?

I don't see where you and Anders are going with this. Why is this relevant?

For me it will be the 100% proof of that that towers and other buildings have brought down manually, using professional demolition firms. And that becomes 100% proof of destroying all alternative versions of a collapse of towers. I know that at a forum the version of manual demolition for a long time already settled. And this demolition plan which has been created before WTC construction and has been included in construction documents of WTC complex is real, true procedure, allowing in the future to execute demolition by profesional company.

All that I wish to find out, it is the reference to the law which includes the demolition plan for WTC construction time moment. That all

Vladislaw » November 23rd, 2016, 7:40 pm wrote:In general now the demolition plan is required prior to the beginning of works on building. But how was at that time of BC 1968 NYC, specially for WTC's buildings process ?

Vladislaw » November 23rd, 2016, 7:40 pm wrote:In general now the demolition plan is required prior to the beginning of works on building. But how was at that time of BC 1968 NYC, specially for WTC's buildings process ?

Anders, you are right. In any case it is necessary to find out that demolition plan has been included to construction documents before the construction begins, and to find out the law (article) which speaks about it.

Vladislaw wrote:For me it will be the 100% proof of that that towers and other buildings have brought down manually, using professional demolition firms. And that becomes 100% proof of destroying all alternative versions of a collapse of towers.

Anders, you are right. In any case it is necessary to find out that demolition plan has been included to construction documents before the construction begins, and to find out the law (article) which speaks about it.

I think it's on topic. Trump knows a lot about such buildings, and someone should ask him during a press conference where the demolition plan for WTC 1 and 2 is. And also for building 7.

And even if there was no explicit requirement in the building code (1938 or 1968), the NYC officials may very well have demanded a demolition plan before the construction anyway in the contract for such tall skyscrapers.